SPEECH  OE  COL.  RUEUS  P.  TAPLEY, 

OF  SACO, 

Delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  Feb.  17th  and  18th,  1865, 

ON  THE  REPEAL  OF  THE  LAW  PROHIBITING  THE  EXTENSION  OF  THE 
“BROAD”  OR  “MIXED”  GAUGE  WITHIN  THE  LIMITS  OF  THIS  STATE. 


In  1860,  the  State  of  Maine' passed  the  following  law : 

“No  Railroad  Comiiany  in  this  State,  after  its  road  shall  be  in  operation,  shall  change  the 
gauge  or  width  of  its  track  between  the  rails  so  as  to  increase  or  diminish  the  distance 
between  the  same,  or  shall  laj'  down  any  extra  or  third  rail  for  the  working  of  its  road 
by  means  of  a mixed  gauge  without  the  express  authority  of  the  Legislature  first  had  and 
obtained:  and  it  shall  bo  the  duty  of  the  Attorney  General,  on  suggestion  or  request  of 
any  person  complaining  of  a violation  of  the  provisions  of  this  act  by  any  Railroad  Com- 
])anjq  to  file  a process  in  Equity  against  said  Company  before  the  Supreme  Court  in  any 
County  in  which  such  violation  shall  be  had,  to  obtain  an  injunction  against  such  viola- 
tion. Any  Justice  of  said  Court  may  grant  a preliminary  injunction  according  to  the 
provisions  of  Chapter  seventy-seven,  section  ten,  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  to  restrain  and 
prohibit  such  violation  : Provided^  however^  This  act  shall  not  apply  to  the  roads  East  of 
Portland.” 

The  Bill  under  debate,  was  to  repeal  this  act,  and  was  reported  by 
a minority  of  the  Committee  on  Railroads,  Ways  and  Bridges,  to 
permit  a change  of  gauge  between  Portland  and  Boston. 

Mpv.  Tapley  addressed  the  House  as  follows : 

Mr.  Speaker  : — We  have  now  come  to  the  discussion  of  one  of  the 
most  important  topics  to  which  our  attention  as  legislators  may  be 
called  during  the  session  ; and  I ‘regret  to  say,  that  we  have  been 
hroiight  to  it  by  a most  unprecedented  course  of  procedure.  The  mi- 
nority of  the  committee  report  a bill,  which,  under  the  rules  of  the 
House,  must  lie  over  one  day  at  least,  and  be  printed.  They 
report  this  bill  at  forty-five  minutes  past*  ten,  A.  M.,  this  day,  and 
against  all  precedent,  disregarding  all  argument,  and  even  entreaty, 
of  those  who  desire  an  examination  of  the  matter,  the  friends  of  this 
bill  assign  11  A.  M.  of  this  day  for  its  consideration — ^just  fifteen 
minutes  after  the  report  is  made,  the  final  consideration  of  this  ques- 
tion is  ordered,  by  a suspension  of  tbe  rule,  and  an  assignment  of 
that  time,  with  weeks  before  us  yet  before  an  adjournment.  By 
putting  ourselves  in  the  very  humiliating  position  of  legging  for  a 
few  minutes  of-  time,  and  intimating  that  unless  granted,  the  debate 
might  come  on  the  final  passage  of  the  bill,  we  have  been  allowed 
until  two  o’clock  P.  M.  of  the  same  day,  with  the  very  cool,  yet  very 
frank,  assurance  that  the  Avhole  subject  matter  has  been  discussed 
outnide  of  the  House,  and  that  members  have  made  up  their  minds 
upon  the  subject.  We  have  as  yet,  at  this  session,  no  precedent  for 
such  a course.  Even  the  most  trivial  matters  of  legislation  have  been 


2 


allowed  to  pursue  and  take  those  regular  and  wholesome  rules  of 
procedure  long  practised  in  legislative  assemblies,  and  which  have 
been  found  so  necessary  to  secure  intelligent  action ; but  this  ques- 
tion— one  which  involves  the  gravest  consequences,  and  necessarily 
takes  into  its  consideration  the  great  commercial,  mercantile  and 
producing  interests  of  the  State,  present  and  future,  with,  also,  the 
interests  of  the  principal  city  of  the  State  perhaps  vitally  interested 
in  it — must  take  on  “ indecent  haste,”  and  assume  an  air  very  near- 
ly akin  to  that  of  suppressing  debate.  The  dog  law  takes  the  usual 
course  of  proceeding — is  open  to  debate  and  amendment,  lies  upon 
the  table  as  often  as  any  member  desires,  for  examination — but  this 
bill  must  be  pressed  through  the  same  day  that  the  minority  report 
it.  I can  now  only  protest  against  it,  and  suggest  to  gentlemen  that 
after  they  have  executed  their  plans,  the  recollection  of  the  mode  will 
be  anything  but  pleasant. 

With  the  announcement  which  was  made  by  my  friend  from 
Bangor,  (Mr.  Garnsey,)  that  “ the  matter  has  been  fully  considered 
outside  the  House,”  and  that  “members  were  prepared  to  vote  on 
this  question,”  coupled  with  the  vote  that  brings  this  discussion  at 
this  time,  I can  but  approach  the  debate  with  some  embarrasment. 
I hardly  think  my  friend  would  have  made  the  announcement  he 
did  unless  he  had  been  furnished  with  some  assurances  that  no  in- 
considerable number  of  you  were  regarded  as  pledged  to  support  the 
minority  report. 

Mr.  Speaker  and  Gentlemen  : I have  not  thus  adverted  to  the 
course  of  procedure  in  this  matter  by  way  of  complaint,  for  that  is  a 
kind  of  temper  I seldom  indulge  in ; but  I have  done  this  to  arrest 
your  attention,  if  possible,  and  secure  it,  for  a few  moments  at  least, 
in  a more  careful  consideration  of  some  of  the  important  aspects 
which  it  presents.  If  I shall  accomplish  this,  even  but  in  part,  so 
far  shall  I succeed  in  my  undertaking. 

Let  me,  then,  ask  you  to  lay  aside  any  previous  convictions,  aris- 
ing from  an  ex  parte  and  partial  view  of  the  matter,  and  forget  for 
the  moment  the  many  importunities  you  have  received  from  inter estecl 
parties,  and  looking  only  at  your  duties  as  legislators,  give  a few 
moments  time  to  reflection  upon  the  very  important  question  in- 
volved in  the  debate. 

A few  days  ago  an  order  passed  both  branches,  directing  an  in- 
' c[uiry  into  the  expediency  of  repealing  Statute,  chap.  152  of  the  laws 
of  18G0.  The  order  was  accompanied  by  a single  petition,  signed 
by  a single  petitioner.  The  matter  was  referred  to  the  Committee 
on  Eailroads,  Ways  and  Bridges,  and  in  due  time  a hearing  was  had 
before  the  committee,  who,  after  the  hearing,  agreed,  by  a majority 
vote,  that  legislation  upon  the  subject  was  inexpedient.  A sugges- 
tion came  from  the  minority,  that  the  petitioner  before  referred  to 
(Hon.  John  A.  Poor)  desired  to  be  heard,  and  he  was  allowed  to  ad- 
dress the  committee.  The  committee  reported  legislation  inexpedi- 
ent. A minority  report  a bill  repealing  the  Act  of  18G0,  and  now 
move  the  substitution  of  their  report  for  that  of  the  majority,  and 
thus  the  debate  comes  on. 

The  bill  reported,  seeks  to  repeal  an  existing  Statute — to  change 
an  existing  law  of  the  State.  No  statement  of  facts  accompanies 
the  report,  to  show  or  indicate  any  reason  ; but  we  are  told  that  the 


3 


reasons  have  been  made  patent  to  a portion  of  members  “ outside  of 
the  House.”  Those  members  who  have  not  been  thus  made  ac- 
quainted with  the  reasons  for  the  desired  change,  must  gather  them 
from  a consideration  of  the  question  itself,  unaided  by  such  sugges- 
tion, and  from  the  arguments  advanced  by  the  gentleman  from  Au- 
gusta, (Mr.  Williams,)  and  the  gentleman  from  Dexter,  (Mr.  Cros- 
b}^,)  who  have  favored  us  with  their  views. 

The  first  inquiry  that  suggests  itself  is, 

WHAT  IS  THE  NATURE  OP  THE  ENACTMENT  SOUGHT  TO  BE  REPEALED ! 

It  is  a Statute  requiring  certain  corporations  to  consult  the  sovereign 
power  of  the  State  before  they  make  certain  changes  afPecting  the 
puUic  interest.  It  is  nothing  more  and  nothing  less,  and  no  ingenu- 
ity of  man  can  make  it  aught  else. 

The  Statute  proceeds  upon  the  ground  that  the  people  are  the 
guardians  of  their  own  rights  and  interests  ; and  it  is  a correct  prop- 
osition, both  of  law  and  fact.  The  corporations  themselves  could 
not  have  existed  but  by  the  expressed  will  of  the  people  through 
appropriate  forms  of  legislation.  They  create  the  body  i^olitic,  and 
to  them  the  body  politic  should  be  answerable.  Not  only  do  they 
exist  under  and  by  the  will  of  the  people,  but  they  exist  upon  the 
declared  necessities  of  the  public.  By  the  legislatures  which  created 
them,  they  were  invested  with  the  power  of  taking  private  property, 
without  the  consent  of  the  owner,  and  appropriating  it  to  the  uses 
contemplated  by  the  acts  of  incorporation.  By  the  law  of  the  land, 
private  property  can  be  taken  only  for  “ public  uses.”  The  strong 
arm  of  the  sovereign  power  of  a State  seizes  upon  my  property  and 
yours,  and  dedicates  it  to  public  uses.  The  great  public  say  that  it 
is  necessary  for  the  promotion  of  their  interests,  that  it  should  thus 
be  taken  and  used ; the  legislature  confers  upon  certain  corporators 
the  power  thus  to  use  it : I say  “the  power  thus  to  use  it”  because  they 
could  not  give  them  power  to  use  it  in  any  other  way.  Now,  under 
such  circumstances,  to  whom  should  such  corporations  be  responsi- 
ble, but  to  the  people  who  made  them,  and  the  people,  whose  ne- 
cessities they  have  been  thus  authorized  and  thus  required  to  pro- 
vide for?  It  is  veiy  plain,  and  verg  clear,  that  they  should  be  an- 
swerable to  the  people  for  the  manner  in  which  they  use  the  prop- 
erty of  the  citizen  and  provide  for  the  public  exigencies  which  author- 
ized this  appropriation  of  property. 

Upon  general  principles,  therefore,  there  is  nothing  in  the  spirit 
of  the  Statute  under  consideration  contrary  to  right  and  justice,  or 
infringing  in  any  degree  upon  the  most  liberal  rules  of  equity ; but 
on  the  contrary,  the  Statute  is  one  tlie  people  have  a right  to  make ; 
and  more,  and  beyond  and  above  all  that,  it  is  one  they  are  in  duty 
hound  to  make,  in  order  that  the  interests  which  are  not  only  the 
primary,  but  the  sole  and  fundamental  cause  of  the  power  thus  con- 
ferred, may  be  protected  and  guarded. 

The  minority,  however,  say,  “You  have  no  such  rights : not  be- 
cause they  do  not  in  common  justice  and  equity  exist,  but  because 
the  acts  of  incorporation  are  contracts  between  the  State  and  the 
corporators,  and  they  do  not  provide  for  such  an  accountability.”  In 
other  words,  the  State  has  given  to  certain  corporations  the  property 
of  certain  of  its  citizens  for  p)'^d)lic  use^  and  have  no  power  to  require 
such  use  to  be  made  of  it,  and  therefore  the  Statute  should  be  repealed. 


4 


Such  a doctrine  is  monstrous.  It  has  no  foundation  in  law  or 
common  justice.  No  intelligent  community  will  recognise  or  sub- 
mit to  such  doctrines.  The  power  to  take  your  property  or  mine,  is 
a qualified  power.  It  is  only  for  ‘‘  public  uses  and  when  any  cor- 
poration surrenders  their  charter,  and  fails  thus  to  use  it,  its  un- 
qualified use  returns  to  its  owner.  The  corporation  takes  only  the 
use,  not  the  fee. 

The  doctrine  advanced  by  the  minority  is  this : when  a railroad 
corporation  have  obtained  their  charter,  upon  the  ground  that  the 
public  exigencies  require  it,  they  may  turn  around  to  the  public  and 
say,  “We  do  not  know  you,  nor  care  for  you  ; our  interests  are  our 
laws  : you  must  seek  yours  some  other  way.” 

As  before  remarked,  such  doctrines  find  no  aid  in  the  rules  of  law 
or  common  justice  ; on  the  other  hand,  the  duty  of  the  State  has  been 
directly  recognized  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State,  in  the  case  of 
State  V.  Noyes,  reported  in  the  47th  Volume  of  Maine  Eeports  of 
Judicial  decisions,  and  may  be  found  on  the  189th  page.  They  say  : 

“ With  the  legislature  the  maxim  of  the  law,  ‘■Salus  populi,  Siiprema  lex,''  should  not  he 
disregarded.  It  is  the  great  principle  on  which  the  Statutes  for  the  secu^ty  of  the  people 
is  based.  This  power  has  always  been  exercised  by  government,  and  its  existence  cannot 
be  reasonably  denied.  How  far  the  provisions  of  thelegislature  can  extend,  is  always  sub- 
mitted to  its,  discretion,  provided  its  acts  do  not  go  beyond  the  great  principle  of  the  public 
safety— and  its  duty  to  provide  for  this  public  safety  within  well-defined  limits  mid  with  discretion 
is  imperative.'''' 

It  is  further  contended,  that  if  this  right  has  not  been  transferred 
the  policy  of  the  State  requires  it  should  now  be  done — that  if  you 
have  this  power,  you  should  now  surrender  it.  Surrender  it  to  whom  ! 
Surrender  it  to  wdiom  ? I ask.  This  leads  to  one  of  the  important 
inquiries  of  the  discussion,  and  that  is,  who  asks  for  this  repeal  ? 
Who  desires  this  change  of  policy  in  the  State  ? The  people,  by 
their  representatives  in  Legislature  assembled  five  years  ago,  made 
this  their  law  ujion  due  consideration.  They  thus  declared  a certain 
State  policy  ; and  who  now  comes  and  asks  a change  in  that  policy  ? 

Turn  to  tlie  record,  Mr.  Speaker,  for  the  answer ! One  single, 
solitary  petitioner  ! He,  who,  when  interest  called  for  it,  could  draft 
and  urge  the  enactment  of  this  law,  now,  when  interest  calls  for  it 
through  the  Boston  Board  of  Trade,  can  petition  for  its  repeal.  The 
Hon.  John  A.  Poor,  once  a representative  of  Portland  interests,  and 
a defender  of  Maine  interests,  now  transferred  to  the  Agency  of  Bos- 
ton Capitalists,  conies  and  asks  for  them  its  repeal.  Not  a single 
citizen  of  Maine  has  asked  it.  Prom  Calais  to  Kittery,  from  the 
Canadian  line  to  the  Atlantic  coast  all  is  quiet  upon  this  Statute,  and 
no  one  of  her  thousands  of  citizens  takes  the  pen  in  hand  to  indite 
or  sign  a petition.  No  body  of  men  representing  the  interests  of 
commerce,  navigation  or  agriculture  ask  for  it.  Not  a railroad  cor- 
poration, not  a single  stockholder  in  any  corporation,  not  even  the 
road  over  wdiicli  they  seek  to  lay  a third  rail,  asks  for  it.  Solitary 
and  alone,  unaided  and  unabashed,  the  father  of  this  Act  now  seeks 
its  life.  I state  this  position  of  the  case  upon  reflection,  and  I 
challenge  any  denial  or  qualification  of  it. 

I appeal  to  you,  gentlemen,  who  intend  to  support  this  bill  of  re- 
peal, have  your  constituency  uttered  one  desire  in  relation  to  it  ? 
Have  you  received  petitions  or  instructions  in  relation  to. this  change 
of  State  policy  ? No  man  of  tlie  Legislature  can  answer  in  the  affirm- 
ative. There  were  not  twenty  men  in  the  State,  upon  the  day  of  our 


5 


election,  who  had  the  most  remote  idea  of  such  a request  being  made. 
They  could  not  be  presumed  to  suppose  any  citizen  of  the  State 
would  be  so  reckless  to  its  interests.  Thousands  and  thousands  of 
your  constituency,  at  this  very  moment  of  time,  have  no  knowledge 
or  suspicion  of  this  movement ; and  wdiy  should  they  ? There  is  no 
reason  that  can  be  given  why  they  should,  but  abundant  reason  ex- 
ists why  they  should  not.  Five  years  ago  the  Legislature  passed 
this  Act  to  protect  them  and  their  interests,  and  the  interests  of  the 
State ; since  that  time  not  a murmur  of  complaint  is  heard  in  the 
State — no  lisp  of  dissatisfaction  comes,  hut  from  abroad^  and  can  they 
be  expected  to  presume  this  is  to  be  changed  to  accommodate  par- 
ties abroad  ? 

Pause  a moment  and  reflect,  that  the  flrst  line  or  word  upon  this 
subject  had  not  been  written  or  printed  when  this  body  convened. 
No  discussions  through  the  public  prints,  in  the  workshop,  store  or 
at  the  fireside,  of  a great  question  like  this,  and  yet,  with  your  con- 
stituency entirely  ignorant  of  what  you  purpose  to  do,  you  propose  to 
repeal  this  law  and  entirely  change  the  previous  policy  of  the  State 
with  regard  to  its  trade.  The  causes  which  are  now'  moving  you  on- 
w’ard  to  this  action  wdll  afford  you  very  little  satisfaction  hereafter. 

You  will  perceive,  gentlemen,  that  the  repeal  is  pressed  upon  two 
grounds  : one,  a want  of  power  in  the  Legislature  of  1800  to  impose 
the  restriction  specified  in  the  Act,  and  the  other,  that  if  there  were 
power,  it  is  against  the  best  policy  of  the  State  to  enforce  the  restric- 
tion. The  question  of  power  has  been  decided  by  the  Legislature  of 
1860,  approved  by  the  Executive  and  recognized  by  the  Supreme 
Court  in  the  case  cited.  If  the  power  did  not  exist,  as  it  is  now  al- 
leged, then  the  Statute  created  no  restraint,  and  no  restraint  exists, 
and  the  Boston  Capitalists,  so  far  as  we  are  concerned,  may  change 
the  gauge  of  the  road  in  this  State  to  any  gauge  the  corporations 
may  be  induced  to  assent  to,  or  may  buy  and  hold  a majority  of  in- 
terest in  stock,  and  change  at  their  will,  wLether  we  will  or  no. 
They  may  change  the  terminus  of  the  Grand  Trunk  Railway  to  the 
city  of  Boston,  and  give  the  order  to  Maine  to  retreat,  and  particu- 
larly may  say  to  Portland,  “ You  may  bid  farewell  to  the  golden 
future  you  have  been  looking  for.” 

Either  they  have  not  confidence  in  this  assertion  of  a w^ant  of  power, 
or  they  desire  us  to  order  our  own  retreat ; for  if  their  view  be  correct, 
they  need  no  repeal.  We  can  hardly  think,  that  wdth  all  their  pride 
of  position,  and  the  domination  wLich  naturally  flows  from  power, 
they  would  unnecessarily  humiliate  us,  and  therefore  we  conclude  they 
have  no  confidence  in  the  assertion  that  the  Legislature  of  1860  did 
not  possess  the  power  to  impose  the  restriction.  The  argument  of 
unconstitutionality  is  a cunning  device  to  carry  this  measure. 

They  cannot  show  that  the  interests  of  the  State  demand  it.  They 
cannot  show  that  the  interests  of  the  State  will  be  promoted  by  it. 
They  cannot  show  that  the  citizens  of  the  State  desire  its  repeal,  and 
therefore  they  cunningly  and  whiningly  say,  “ Unconstitutional ! ” 
“ Unconstitutional ! ! ” They  make  an  appeal  to  State  pride,  and 
say,  w’hether  it  be  politic  or  impolitic,  a great  State  like  ours  ought 
to  have  no  unconstitutional  Act  upon  its  Statute  Book.  Keep  in 
mind  all  the  time,  gentlemen,  that  these  suggestions  come  from  the 
Board  of  Trade  of  another  State.  They  arc  giving  you  this  advice. 


6 

They  want  you  to  make  haste  to  proclaim  the  stupidity  of  the  Legis- 
lature and  Executive  of  1860,  if  they  lelieve  it  was  unconstitutional. 

To  my  mind,  gentlemen,  the  very  fact  that  the  projectors  of  this 
movement  have  conducted  this  matter  in  this  quiet  way  before  it 
comes  to  this  body,  and  then  forcing  it  out  of  the  well-recognized 
and  legitimate  modes  of  legislation,  is  “proof  as  strong  as  Holy 
Writ”  that  they  recognize  the  power  in  the  people  thus  to  guard 
and  protect  their  interests.  If  they  had  circulated  petitions  for  the 
repeal,  they  reflect,  these  would  have  suggested  remonstrances  on 
the  part  of  the  people,  who  would  thus  be  awakened  to  their  inter- 
ests and  rights  in  this  matter.  So  they  come  with  a single  petitioner, 
whose  prayer  was  probably  indited  and  signed  in  Boston.  A few 
days  of  consideration  here,  and  consultation  with  our  constituents, 
might  produce  unfavorable  results,  and  the  scheme  thus  fail ; so  we 
have  a silent  initiation  and  a precipitate  execution.  We  may  well 
conclude  they  do  not  themselves  believe  the  Statute  unconstitutional. 

As  bearing  upon  the  question  of  inherent  defects  in  the  Act  of  1860, 
I will  call  your  attention  in  this  connection,  to  so  much  of  the  argu- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Augusta  (Mr.  Williams)  as  was  directed 
to  that  point.  He  has  called  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  it  is  an 
Act  entitled  “An  Act  to  promote  safety  of  travel  on  railroads,”  and 
then  assumes  that  the  Act  has  no  reference  to  the  safety  of  travel, 
and  that  it  is  so  dissimilar  that  it  provokes  a smile  every  time  you 
read  it.  Whether  he  intends  to  charge  upon  the  Legislature  of  1860, 
who  passed  the  law,  gross  ignorance  and  stupidity,  or  wilful  act  of 
deception,  really  matters  not  in  the  view  I take  of  the  subject ; and 
I remember,  also,  that  the  same  person  who  is  now  the  sole  peti- 
tioner here,  was  instrumental  in  securing  its  passage. 

The  Act  of  1860  does  contemplate  providing  for  the  security  and 
safety  of  travel.  Previous  to  1860,  certain  railroad  corporations  ex- 
isted in  this  State,  and  had  fixed  the  gauges  of  their  roads,  and  ope- 
rated them  upon  those  gauges.  The  gauges  thus  fixed  had  been 
found  safe  for  the  travel.  Immediately  preceding  the  year  1860,  cer- 
tain stock  and  railroad  brokers  had  started  the  project  of  working 
some  of  the  roads  by  a mixed  gauge.  This  has  always  been  deemed 
unsafe,  and  a very  able  report  has  been  made  at  one  time  by  a scien- 
tific and  practical  Commissioner  upon  this  subject  in  this  State.  So 
much  importance,  at  any  rate,  was  attached  to  it  that  the  Legisla- 
ture of  1860  provided  the  change  should  not  be  made  without  con- 
sulting the  Legislature  of  the  State. 

The  spirit  and  letter  of  the  Act  is  in  entire  harmony  with  ihQ^^otver 
and  duty  of  the  State,  and  in  no  manner  whatever  inconsistent  with 
its  title.  I It  says  to  railroad  corporations,  “You  have  been  instiBit- 
ed  upon  the  public  necessities;  you  must  provide  for  those  necessities, 
and  whenever  you  desire  to  make  any  change  in  the  gauge  of  your 
road,  or  propose  to  work  it  by  a mixed  gauge,  you  must  make  known 
your  plan  to  the  Legislature ; and  if  it  be  found  consistent  with  the 
objects  of  your  existence  as  corporate  bodies,  and  does  not  impair  the 
safety  of  travel,  you  may  be  allowed  to  make  the  change ; but  on  the 
other  hand,  if  your  proposed  change  be  entirely  at  variance  with  the 
provisions  and  purposes  of  your  charters,  you  cannot  be  allowed  to 
thus  change  your  gauge.”  I find  nothing  in  this  Act  to  “provoke 


the  smile”  which  seems  to  trouble  my  friend  from  Augusta.  I find 
nothing  in  the  Act  inconsistent  with  its  title ; and  if  I did  find  a 
valuable  act  upon  the  Statute  Book,  I should  not  regard  a defective 
title  as  any  reason  for  its  repeal. 

An  Act  was  passed  last  winter  entitled  “An  Act  to  provide  means 
for  the  defence  of  the  North-Eastern  frontier,”  which  contains  an 
appro})riation  of  all  the  land  we  have  to  the  European  and  North 
American  Railway  Company : now  I do  not  believe  that  the  friends 
of  that  road  regard  the  fact  that  the  appropriation  was  put  into  a bill 
bearing  such  a title  as  a sufficient  reason  for  its  repeal  this  winter. 
The  truth  is,  gentlemen,  it  is  one  of  those  “ make-weights,”  w'hich 
are  thrown  into  the  contest  for  the  Avant  of  better  material,  and  you 
and  I know  that  the  gentleman  from  Augusta  never  uses  such  small 
and  inefficient  Aveapons,  Avhen  larger  and  more  efficient  are  at  hand. 

Another  objection  raised,  is  that  the  Statute  is  a species  of  special 
legislation.  Who  complains  of  this  special  legislation  ? Now  this  is 
also  an  important  inquiry  AAuth  reference  to  the  argument  Avhich  is  to 
folloAV  ; and  let  us  endeavor  to  find  out  as  to  ivliom  this  is  special  legisla- 
tion. The  last  proviso  excludes  all  roads  East  of  Portland  from  the 
operation  of  this  Act.  Do  they  Avant  to  be  limited  in  their  operations? 
Do  they  complain  because  this  restriction  is  not  imposed  upon  them? 
Certainly  not.  No  one  pretends  that  such  is  the  case;  so  all  the 
roads  East  of  Portland  are  beyond  this  cause  of  complaint.  If  they 
Avere  not,  and  desired  to  be  embraced  within  the  restriction,  that  diffi- 
culty could  be  A^ery  easily  obviated  by  repealing  the  proviso  Avhich 
exempts  them.  It  is  not  worth  wdiile,  however,  to  argue  that  mat- 
ter, for  no  one  pretends  that  any  of  these  roads  find  fault  because 
they  are  exempted  from  the  restriction. 

There  are  three  roads  West  of  Portland — the  York  & Cumberland, 
the  Portland,  Saco  & Portsmouth  and  the  Boston  & Maine.  They 
are  embraced  Avithin  the  restriction.  Do  either  of  these  roads  make 
the  complaint,  and  ask  for  the  repeal  of  the  Act?  None  of  them. 
There  is  not  the  first  scintilla  of  evidence  of  such  a fact : there  is  not 
even  the  suggestion  of  such  a thing.  Certain  it  is,  they  are  not  here 
by  President,  Director,  or  shareholder  even,  asking  it.  Not  a soli- 
tary individual  in  the  State  asks  for  it.  Now  Avho  does  complain  of 
this  “special  legislation”?  It  is  simply,  and  none  other,  than  the 
Boston  Board  of  Trade.  It  is  the  same  party  Avho  is  asking  for  the 
repeal.  Their  complaint  comes  here  through  the  gentleman  you  have 
seen  here  attending  upon  the  birtli  of  this  bill  and  Avatching  Avith 
anxiety  its  travail.  \Te  have  it  fixed  beyond  all  cavil,  that  the  repeal 
is  asked  for  by  Boston  capitalists,  and  that  the  complaint  that  it  is 
“ special  legislation,”  comes  from  Boston  capitalists.  Keeping  this 
in  mind,  let  us  pass  to  another  cause  of  complaint,  Avhich  is,  that 
Massachusetts  complains  thattlie  Act  of  18G0  is  unfriendlg  legislation. 
In  this  last  instance  Ave  have  the  i)arty  Avho  com])]ains  of  “unfriendly 
legislation”  named  to  us.  I therefore  find  it  established,  thattlie  party 
Avho  Jisks  the  repeal,  and  the  party  avIio  complains  of  the  character 
of  the  Statute  is  Massachusetts — or  more  definitely  speaking,  the 
Boston  capitalist.  About  this  fact  I believe  there  can  be  no  question. 

With  this  examination,  how  stands  the  case  ? It  is  this : the  State 
of  Maine,  an  independent,  sovereign  State,  no  longer  the  ward  of  the 


8 

State  of  Massachusetts,  has,  in  a constitutional  manner,  and  by  the 
appropriate  modes  of  legislation,  looking  to  the  protection  of  her  own 
interests,  and  the  safety  of  her  travel,  passed  an  Act  which  has  be- 
come a law  of  the  State.  The  capitalists  of  the  city  of  Boston  send 
an  agent  to  the  State  of  Maine  to  inform  them  that  the  Act  is  uncon- 
stitutional ; that  it  is  special  in  its  character  as  to  them ; that  it  is 
imfriendhj  as  to  them,  and  they  therefore  require  its  repeal — demand  its 
repeal ; and  I do  not  state  this  demand  in  too  strong  terms,  for  their 
agent,  in  addressing  the  committee,  threatened  war  if  it  were  not 
repealed — ‘‘a  war,”  he  said,  “more  troublesome  in  its  effects  upon 
the  State  of  Maine  than  the  present  civil  war  and  rebellion.”  He 
notified,  also,  all  parties  who  were  called  upon  to  act  in  this  matter, 
that  unless  they  granted  and  voted  for  the  repeal,  their  places  here 
would  next  year  be  filled  with  other  and  better  men.  These  threats, 
with  much  other  severe  denunciation  of  those  who  do  not  approve  of 
the  repeal,  were  presented  by  him  with  certainly  a great  deal  of 
physical  vigor  and  earnestness.  The  logic  of  it  is  not  apparent : the 
policy  may  be,  when  we  discover  its  effects. 

I propose  soon  to  inquire  why  it  is  Massachusetts  thus  interests 
herself  in  the  laws  of  Maine,  and  so  offensively  presents  her  demands ; 
but  before  doing  so,  I desire  to  advert  to  this  charge  of  “unfriendly 
legislation,”  and  suggest,  upon  the  shewing  of  their  own  agent,  it  is 
wanting  in  good  taste  and  grace,  if  not  in  truth.  I hold  in  my  hand 
a document  marked 

“ HOXJSm  7. 

CoirLmonwealtli  of  Massaclixisetts. 

MEMORIAL— 

To  the  Honorahle  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Coranionwealth  of  Mas- 
sachusetts in  Legislature  assembled.” 

This  document  is  signed  “John  A.  Poor,”  and  dated  “Boston, 
January  17,  1865.”  To  show  you  with  what  grace  Massachusetts 
can  complain  of  “unfriendly  legislation,”  I propose  to  read  a few 
extracts  from  this  remarkable  book.  He  begins  back  to  the  Act  of 
Separation,  and  says : 

“ By  the  Act  of  Separation— re/wetan^ty  granted  in  the  year  1819— the  Commonwealth  of 
Massachusetts  retamed  one-half  of  the  unsold  lands  lying  in  Maine,  amounting  at  that  time 
to  11,824,438  acres.  Of  this  amount  3,207,680  acres  were  subsequently,  for  the  sake  of  peace, 
surrendered  up  or  ceded  to  the  United  States  Government  by  the  treaty  of  Washington, 
leaving  8,616,7.58  acres— one-half  of  which  (4,388,379  acres)  fell  to  Massachusetts.  The  land 
was  to  be  exemjU from  taxation  while  the  title  remained  in  the  Co^nmonwealth.  How  faithfully 
Maine  vindicated  this  principle,  in  spite  of  all  the  evasions  of  the  right  of  taxation,  the  ju- 
dicial records  of  our  State  will  show.  At  the  time  of  separation  the  lands  had  but  little 
value  in  cash,  but  were  regarded  as  of  great  importance  for  settling  and  as  a means  of  in- 
creasing the  wealth  and  political  power  of  the  countr)'.  Proposals  of  sale  w'ere  interchanged. 
Massachusetts  would  have  transferred  her  interest  to  Maine  for  $150,000;  Maine  offered 
$100,000,  and  the  negotiations  were  dropped,  most  unfortunately  for  Maine.  Portions  of  the 
lands  w^ere  afterwards  divided  by  alternate  to»vnships,  and,  up  io  1%2>2,  Massachusetts  re- 
ceived into  her  treasury  $122,465.94,  as  proceeds  of  sales  of  land  and  timber  in  Maine.  In  1832, 
an  agreement  of  the  Land  Agents  of  the  two  States  for  a system  of  management  and  joint 
sales  was  assented  to  by  the  respective  Legislatures,  and  in  and  by  this  convention  it  was 
agreed,  that  ten  per  cent,  of  the  gross  proceeds  of  the  sales  should  be  expended  for  improve- 
ments in  the  way  of  roads  and  bi'idges,  and  rendering  watercourses  navigable  for  the  float- 
ing timber,  thereby  largely  enhancing  the  value  of  the  remaining  unsold  lands.  From  1832 
till  1852,  Massachusetts  paid  out  only  $69,939.49  for  roads,  bridges  and  other  improvements, 
while  she  received  $1,927,719.54  as  the  proceeds  of  the  sales.  Maine  paid  out,  from  1832  till 
1852,  $183,116.23  for  roads  and  bridges,  leaving  a deficit  due  from  Massachusetts  of  $113,276.74, 
assuming  that  the  gross  amount  of  sales  by  the  two  States  was  equal.” 

Now  comes  an  important  statement ; that  which  I have  read  be- 
ing merely  by  way  of  introduction  to  this : 

“ In  1851  Maine  became  aroused  and  alarmed  at  the  course  pursued  by  Massachusetts  in 
contravention  of  the  principles  of  the  compact,  y\z:  granting  licenses  to  cut  timber  without 
limit,  or  selling  the  timber  and  lumber  only,  retaining  the  title  to  the  soil,  thereby  shutting  up 
the  lands  from  settlement,  and  keeping  them  from  taxation." 


9 


Hear,  gentlemen,  a little  farther,  what  he  says  in  this  memorial : 

*•  Maine  remonstrated,  but  without  success,  and  saw  no  remedy  except  apurchase  from  Massa- 
chusetts of  all  her  remaining  interests  in  the  public  lands." 

And  he  says  Maine  did  subsequently  purchase,  and  pay  $362,500 
for  the  remnants  and  residuary  interests  of  Massachusetts,  and  then 
goes  on  and  states  figures,  and  says : 

“ Showing  a total  of  $ 2,682,246.90  received  by  Massachusetts,  without  interest,  since  the  sepa- 
ration, as  the  proceeds  of  sales  of  land  in  Maine,  drawn  from  the  industry  of  Maine  to  aid  the 
School  Fund  of  Massachusetts,  atid  to  succor,  in  its  hour  of  difficulty,  the  drooping  fortunes  of 
the  Western  Railroad."  “ No  adjustment  of  this  claim  for  deficiency  of  expenditure  for 
roads,  bridges  and  improvements  was  attempted  at  the  time  of  the  purchase— so  anxious 
was  Maine  to  arrest  these  unfriendly  proceedings,  and  secure  complete  jurisdiction  and  con- 
trol of  the  lands  within  her  own  territory.” 

This  is  the  State  that  finds  fault  with  us  about  the  act  of  1860  ! 
These  are  the  men  who  talk  about  “unfriendly  legislation”!! 
How  gracefully  this  comes  from  them ! From  what  a high  emin- 
ence of  liberality  do  they  look  down  upon  us  and  talk  to  us  about 
illiberal  things.  ' They  us  till  1820,  then  ’‘^reluctantly'’'  parted 
from  us,  taking  for  herself  Eleven  millions,  eight  hundred  and  twenty -four 
thousand,  four  hundred  and  thirty-eight  acres  of  our  land — from  which 
she  has  received  about  Three  Millions  of  Dollars.  They  agreed  to 
expend  ten  per  cent  of  their  sales  upon  roads,  bridges,  &c.,  and  they 
were  deficit  in  this  matter  and  are  to-day  a sum  which  the  memori- 
al makes  up  to  “$  146,515.08  without  computing  interest  thereon.” 
To  embarrass  and  prevent  the  settlement  of  their  lands,  and  cheat  us 
out  of  the  tax,  they  resort  to  the  subterfuge  of  “ selling  the  timber  and 
lumber,  only  retaining  the  title  to  the  soil and  yet,  in  1865,  these  indi- 
viduals read  us  lectures  about  “ unfriendly  legislation  ” ! What  has 
wrought  this  great  change  in  their  moral  nature  ? Have  they  for- 
got the  past  ? or  do  they  think  we  have  ? Do  they  consider  they 
have  a right  to  do  these  things,  and  then  preach  us  sermons  ? — send 
their  agents  to  talk  to  us  of  illiberal  acts  ? 

Mr.  Speaker,  the  same  spirit  which  has  wrung  from  us  the  mil- 
lions, so  conclusively  shown  in  this  memorial,  now  comes  and  asks 
for  more,  by  the  transfer  of  all  your  trade,  and  that  Avhich  by  our 
industry  and  enterprise  w^e  have  obtained  from  other  quarters.  The 
argument  of  unfriendly  legislation  must  come  from  some  other 
source  to  carry  the  merit  of  precept  and  example  with  it. 

E/eturning  now  to  the  inquiry,  why  Massachusetts  interests  her- 
self so  much  about  the  matter,  let  us  inquire,  in  the  first  place,  “Why 
does  she  desire  the  repeal  of  this  Statute  ?”  Simply,  because  she 
believes  it  is  for  her  benefit  to  have  it  done.  No  one  will  contend,  I 
think,  that  she  desires  it  for  our  good  : such  unselfish  acts  are  very 
rare  in  this  world,  and  would  appear  a little  singular  in  the  company 
of  such  acts  as  I have  read  from  this  memorial.  It  is  undoubtedly 
for  her  own  interest  she  is  working.  Why  does  she  complain  of  the 
Act  of  1860,  as  a species  of  “ special  legislation  ” ? Not  simply  be- 
cause it  is  special  legislation,  but  because  it  is  of  thfit  character  which 
interferes  with  her  profits  from  Maine.  She  regards  it  as  against  her 
interests.  If  she  looked  upon  it  as  promoting  her  interest,  do  you 
think  she  would  complain  ? By  no  means  : it  is  because  the  Act  of 
1860  stands  in  the  way  of  her  profit  and  interest! 

Pursuing  the  same  course  of  inquiry.  Why  does  she  regard  the 
Act  as  “ unfriendly  legislation  ” ? How  is  it  unfriendly  ? There  can 
be  no  pretence  that  the  Act  was  passed  with  any  malice  towards 


10 


them.  There  can  be  no  pretence  that  we  have  a desire  to  injure 
them.  There  is  not  the  least  particle  of  evidence  that  Ave  withhold 
anything  which  belongs  to  them.  Hoav,  then,  is  it  unfriendly  ? It 
is  only  unfriendly  because  their  interest  Avould  be  promoted  by  its 
repeal.  If  their  interests  were  best  promoted  by  its  existence,  think 
you  they  would  regard  it  as  unfriendly  legislation  ? It  is,  then, 
simply  unfriendly  because  they  are  prevented  from  reaping  a profit 
from  a trade  we  noAV  receive. 

Mr.  Speaker  and  Gentlemen,  we  have,  I think,  necessarily  arrived 
at  the  conclusion,  that  they  regard  the  existence  of  the  Act  as  detri- 
mental to  their  interests — that  its  repeal  would  promote  their  inter- 
est ; and  now  the  inquiry  arises,  how  the  repeal  will  obviate  their 
difficulties,  and  promote  their  desires  ? In  other  Avords,  What  is 
their  scheme  ? What  do  they  propose  to  do  ? 

They  propose  to  change  the  terminus  of  the  Grand  Trunk  Rail- 
way from  Portland  to  the  City  of  Boston. 

They  propose  to  change  the  point  of  departure  and  arrival  of  a 
weekly  line  of  steamers  noAv  leaving  our  coast,  and  crossing  the  At- 
lantic from  the  City  of  Portland,  to  the  City  of  Boston. 

They  propose  to  take  the  benefit  of  the  Western  trade,  Avhich  Ave 
noAV  have,  coming  over  the  Grand  Trunk  Paihvay. 

They  propose  to  obtain  a return  of  the  trade  of  Maine. 

They  propose,  Avhen  we  have  built  the  European  & North  Ameri- 
can PailAvay,  (for  they  will  never  pay  a dollar  towards  it,)  to  take 
the  benefit  of  that  enterprise,  also — in  homely,  practical  phrase, 
they  propose  Ave  shall  furnish  the  fodder  and  hold  the  coav  Avhile 
they  milk  her. 

They  propose  to  change  the  City  of  Portland  from  the  busy,  active, 
thriving,  rapidly  increasing  “ toAvn  at  the  East,”  to  a place  Avithout 
trade,  and  make  it  a peninsula  over  which  to  transfer  the  trade  of 
the  West,  the  North  and  the  East  to  the  “hub  ” of  NeAV  England. 

They  propose  we  shall  change  our  State  policy,  of  building  up  a 
business  and  trade  in  our  own  midst,  and  again  open  the  old  chan- 
nels to  Boston,  and  any  legislation  having  different  ends  in  vieAV, 
they  tell  us  is  “unfriendly  legislation.”  \ 

Mr.  Speaker,  States,  as  well  as  individuals,  are  the  subjects  of 
ambitions  and  jealousies  ; and  our  innumerable  Avaterfalls,  magnifi- 
cent coast,  and  almost  inexhaustable  resources  for  a great  manufac- 
turing and  commercial  State,  coupled  with  the  rapid  and  unexam- 
pled growth  and  prosperity  of  some  of  our  cities,  has  not  failed  to 
excite  our  ambition  or  the  jealousies  of  our  neighbors.  Boston  has 
neither  been  unmindful  of  our  prosperity,  or  ignorant  of  its  cause. 

This  once  dependency  of  Massachusetts  is  noAV  a sovereign,  inde- 
pendent State,  exhibiting  in  the  present  many  evidences  of  a future, 
rivalling  in  power,  both  political  and  commercial,  the  ancient 
Commonwealth  herself. 

Now,  sir,  why  should  we  fall  back  to  the  old  position  of  depend- 
ency to  Massachusetts  ? Why  should  we  subsidize  ourselves  to  them? 

Why  should  we  give  them  the  benefit  of  every  enterprise  Ave  have 
started  and  carried  to  success  ? Why,  pray  tell  us,  should  loe  open 
every  channel  of  trade  to  them  ? 

The  history  of  the  State,  both  before  and  since  its  organization  as 
a State,  which  Ave  find  so  carefully  compiled  in  the  memorial  of  the 


11 


gentleman  from  Boston,  (Mr.  Poor,)  does  not  show  imy  equitable  vqq.- 
sons  for  it,  and  no  gentleman  lias  been  kind  enough' to  show  us  any 
other  reasons  for  it.  It  is  not  suggested  that  it  will  increase  our 
power  or  advance  our  position  as  a State,  unless  it  be  in  a moral 
point,  by  repealing  this  unfriendly  Act.  It  is  not  suggested  that  it 
will  increase  the  foreign  and  domestic  trade  of  the  State.  It  is  not 
suggested  that  it  will  give  a stimulus  to  trade,  agriculture  or  arts, 
or  increase  in  any  measure  our  prosperity.  Why  is  it,  then  ? Can 
any  one  give  us  a good  reason  for  it  ? My  friend  who  sits  on  the 
left  (Mr.  Poor)  has  urged  this  as  a means  to  obtain  aid  from  Massa- 
chusetts in  the  construction  of  his  railway. 

A few  years  ago  the  Legislature  chartered  what  is  called  the  Eu- 
ropean & North  American  Pailway  Company,  and  authorized  the 
construction  of  a railroad  from  the  vicinity  of  Bangor,  across  the 
State,  to  the  Provincial  line,  there  to  connect  with  a road  in  the 
Provinces,  (if  any  should  ever  be  built.)  John  A.  Poor  is  said  to  be 
President  of  this  scheme.  He  has  asked  Massachusetts  to  help 
build  the  road,  and  his  request  is  in  these  words : 

“ We  therefore  respectfully  ask  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts  to  assign  to  said  Rail- 
way Company  its  claims  against  the  United  States  Government,  held  jointly  with  Maine, 
reh;ase  and  discharge  the  State  of  Maine  from  its  certilicates  of  indebtedness  due  from  said 
purchase  of  said  lands,  and  to  grant  a loan  of  the  credit  of  the  State  to  the  amount  of 
S 5o0,000,  to  aid  in  the  construction  of  said  railway,  and  to  render  such  other  and  farther 
aid,  assistance  and  encouragement  thereto  as  the  Legislature  in  its  wisdom  may  deem  pru- 
dent and  necessary,  in  view  of  the  importance  of  tlie  European  <fe  North  American  Rail- 
way.” 

A very  modest  hind  of  a request.^  unless  it  teas  to  he  paid  for  in  some  way. 

He  asks  the  State  of  Massachusetts  to  give  up  our  indebtedness  to 
them,  vdiich  amounts  to  $ 200,000,  and  give  to  them,  also,  the  claim 
of  Massachusetts  against  the  general  Government,  which  they  hold 
jointly  Tvdth  us,  and  which,  for  aught  I know,  may  be  $300,000 
more,  and  then,  in  addition  to  this  a loan  of  their  credit  for  $500,000 
more,  making  in  all  the  very  modest  request  of  a gift  of  a half  mil- 
lion dollars,  and  a loan  to  his  corporation  of  a half  million  dollars 
more.  When  the  request  was  made,  the  inquiry  very  naturally 
came.  What  do  you  propose  to  give  us  for  all  this  ? How  do  you 
think  vm  can  afford  to  put  so  much  into  such  an  enterprise  ? These 
were  very  jiertinent  questions,  and  must  be  ans^vered  in  some  way. 
Some  consideration,  of  course,  must  be  given  for  such  magnificent 
aid,  and  it  must  be  a consideration  equal,  at  least,  in  value  to  the 
aid  asked  for. 

According  to  the  memorial,  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  past  his- 
tory of  the  two  States,  to  lead  us  to  suppose  that  Massachusetts  is 
suffering  and  bleeding  for  an  opportunity  to  give  us  this  amount  of 
money,  neither  have  v^e  the  more  tangible  evidence  of  any  offer  of 
it  on  her  part.  The  idea  is  perfectly  ridiculous,  that  Massachusetts 
will  make  such  advances,  unless  she  can  see  an  equal  benefit,  at 
least,  to  bo  derived  from  it.  So  you  will  perceive,  gentlemen,  that 
if  the  object  is  really  to  get  the  aid  which  has  been  solicited  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, it  must  be  paid  for  in  some  way  or  other. 

Now,  in  answer  to  the  inquiries  thus  made  to  him,  Avhat  does  ho 
propose  to  give  them  ? 

As  I before  remarked,  ho  proposes  to  change  the  terminus  of  the 
Grand  Trunk  Itailway  from  the  City  of  Portland  to  the  City  of  Bos- 
ton, by  means  of  a mixed  gauge.  Ho  then  goes  on  to  recount  the 


12 


value  of  the  change  to  the  City  of  Boston,  and  point  out  the  neces- 
sity which  exists  for  the  change.  He  says,  and  I read  from  his 
memorial,  “Within  the  last  ten  years  Boston  has  witnessed  the 
gradual  withdrawal  of  the  trade  of  Maine,  and  the  growth  of  a com- 
mercial town  at  the  East.  The  valuation  of  Portland  has  increased 
from  $ 4,634,738,  in  1845,  to  $ 26,963,939,  in  1864.  Her  exports 
to  foreign  countries,  from  $ 251,097,  in  1845,  to  $4,396,142,  in  1864. 
Her  imports,  from  $339,791,  in  1845,  to  $ 13,039,749,  in  1864 — 
showing  not  only  a growth  of  business,  but  an  increase  of  wealth 
unexampled  in  any  other  city  of  New  England  during  the  same  period?'’ 

Now,  gentlemen,  look  at  his  proposition,  as  embodied  in  the  par- 
agraph which  I have  read : He  first  says,  “ Within  the  last  ten 
years  Boston  has  witnessed  the  gradual  withdrawal  of  the  trade  of 
Maine.”  That  is  to  say,  Maine  has  opened  a communication  with 
the  producer,  and  Boston  has  lost  the  profits  of  her  trade.  He  then 
says  the  result  of  this  new  communication  has  been  to  build  up  “ a 
commercial  town  at  the  East,”  the  statistics  of  which  show,  as  he 
says,  “not  only  a growth  of  business,  but  an  increase  of  wealth  un- 
exampled in  any  other  city  of  New  England  during  the  same  period.” 

In  another  part  of  the  memorial,  he  says,  “Twenty  years  ago, 
the  people  of  Massachusetts  distrusted  the  ability  of  the  people  of 
Maine  to  construct  a line  of  railway  from  the  open  harbor  of  Port- 
land to  the  boundary  of  Canada,  connecting  with  a line  thence  to 
Montreal.  Unaided  by  other  New  England  capital,  the  people  of 
Maine  persevered  in  their  efforts,  and  an  unbroken  line  of  railway, 
from  Lake  Huron  to  the  Ocean,  discharges  its  freight  without  tran- 
shipment, on  board  Ocean  Steamers  at  Portland.  A system  of  rail- 
ways embracing  a length  of  1,396  miles,  since  finished,  is  now  in- 
cluded in  the  Grand  Trunk  Eailway  of  Canada,  with  scarcely  any 
connection  with  Boston,  or  other  portions  of  New  England  outside 
of  Maine.” 

Here,  gentlemen,  you  have  his  proposition.  He  proposes,  so  far 
as  he  can,  to  return  the  trade  of  Maine,  which  has  been  withdrawn. 
No  longer,  he  tells  them,  shall  you  witness  “ the  growth  of  this  com- 
mercial town  at  the  East.”  The  trade  which  has  produced  “ not 
only  a growth  of  business,  but  an  increase  of  wealth  unexampled  in 
any  other  city  of  New  England  during  the  same  period,”  shall,  he 
tells  them,  be  transferred  to  them.  He  says  to  them.  That  line  of 
railway,  which  we  built  unaided’’  hy  your  capital^  when  you  dis- 
trusted our  ability,  shall  be  opened  to  your  interests  and  profit. 
The  Ocean  Steamers  now  at  Portland,  receiving  discharges  of  freight 
from  a line  of  1,396  miles  of  railway,  shall  receive  those  freights 
at  Boston,  “ outside  of  Maine.” 

Now,  gentlemen,  is  not  that  the  offer,  in  almost  the  identical 
words  of  the  proposition  ? and  is  it  not  perfectly  apparent,  that  the 
change  and  transfer  of  such  important  rights  and  interests  must  im- 
poverish us  as  a State  in  every  point  of  view  ? and  can  it  need  any 
suggestion,  to  show  what  immense  interests  to  the  City  of  Portland 
are  involved  in  this  wholesale  trade  ? But  here,  again,  we  meet 
the  gentleman  from  Augusta,  who  says  we  invoke  local  interests. 
Pray  tell  us,  what  are  State  interests,  but  local  interests  in  the  ag- 
gregate. Is  Portland  worth  nothing  to  the  State  of  Maine  ? Can  we 
afford  to  prostrate  her  for  the  aggrandisement  of  Boston  ? What  is 


13 


tlie  City  of  Portland  ? Is  it  a little,  insignificent  place,  not  worlli 
our  care  and  attention  ? or  has  the  learned  counsel  of  the  Boston 
Board  of  Trade  given  you  some  idea  of  her  importance  in  his  me- 
morial f 

If  I recollect  aright,  it  is  a city  of  about  35,000  inhabitants — vir- 
tuous, intelligent  and  enterprising.  It  paid  last  year,  of  your  State 
tax,  $175,000.  It  pays  this,  $328,000.  Last  year  she  paid,  in 
taxes  and  revenue,  six  millions  of  dollars. 

She  has  a weekly  line  of  Ocean  Steamers,  a line  of  Steamers  to  • 
New  York,  and  a line  of  Steamers  to  Boston,  besides  those  plying 
between  ports  in  this  State.  She  had,  during  the  last  year,  3,499 
arrivals  of  vessels  at  her  port.  Her  harbor  is  your  harbor,  and  one 
of  the  best  on  the  continent.  Can  we  afford  to  lose  many  such 
“ locals  ” ? She  pays  one-seventh  of  the  tax  of  the  whole  State  : six 
more  such  locals,  and  you  have  absorbed  the  whole. 

Now,  gentlemen,  is  it  well  to  reverse  the  order  of  things  in  Port- 
land ? Is  it  policy  to  retard  this  increase  of  wealth  and  population  ? 
Is  it  worth  the  effort,  to  try  to  raise  grass  in  the  streets  of  Portland  ? 
If  you  transfer  all,  or  indeed  any,  of  these  sources  of  wealth  and 
prosperity  to  the  City  of  Boston,  do  you  expect  that  city  will  contri- 
bute to  the  payment  of  your  taxes,  or  the  liquidation  of  your  debt  ? 
No  one,  for  a moment,  expects  any  such  aid  from  them. 

The  gentleman  from  Augusta  also  argues,  that  the  Statute  stands 
in  the  way  of  the  completion  of  the  European  & North  American 
Pailway,  because,  as  he  says,  Massachusetts  will  not  aid  in  building 
it  unless  she  can  participate  in  its  benefits.  Very  true,  she  will  not ; 
and  it  is  a very  good  reason  why  she  slioidd  not  contribute.  There 
is  nothing  strange  in  this  refusal.  But,  gentlemen,  I reason  upon 
the  subject  in  this  wise  ; If  the  road,  when  constructed,  is  of  such 
immense  advantage  to  Massachusetts  as  to  induce  them  to  make  the 
outlay  desired,  is  it  not  of  equal  advantage  to  Maine  ? What  she  gets, 
we  do  not ; and  what  more  she  gets  by  a change  of  gauge,  we  lose. 
If  this  road  opens  such  advantages,  let  us  build  it.  If  twenty  years 
ago  we  could  build  “ a line  of  railway  from  the  open  harbor  of  Port- 
land to  the  boundary  of  Canada,  connecting  with  a line  to  Montre- 
al,” “ unaided  by  other  New  England  capital,”  can  we  not  now  build 
a much  shorter  line,  unaided  by  the  Boston  capitalists  ? VvY  have 
the  English  capitalist  at  the  other  end  of  this  route,  as  well  as  that. 
Then  the  valuation  of  Portland  Avas  $4,()34,738  ; uoav  it  is  $26,963,- 
939 — almost  six  times  as  large.  Tlien  Portland  put  into  that  enter- 
2)rise  almost  one  million  of  dollars.  If  she  could  do  it  then,  can  she 
not  do  it  noAV  ? No  one  doubts  it.  Then  why  pass  by  Portland, 
and  seek  the  aid  in  Boston  ? Very  clearly,  if  the  gauge  is  to  be 
changed,  you  cannot  expect  Portland  to  aid  in  it.  The  aid  must 
come  from  the  point  that  is  to  derive  the  benefit.  But,  says  one,  if 
Portland  Avill  furnish  the  aid  to  build  the  road,  Avhy  not  do  so,  and 
keep  our  system  and  gauge  as  it  is  ? I say,  undoubtedly  that  is  the 
true  policy ; but  that  Avill  not  ansAver  for  Boston ; and  you  see  this 
brings  us  back  directly  to  the  first  proposition,  that  this  is  a l^oston 
project ; that  it  is  Boston  moving  in  this  matter,  and  the  European 
& North  American  Itaihvay  aid  is  a bait  to  get  the  restriction  re- 
moved. If  Ave  build  the  road,  and  retain  the  gauge  as  noAV  estab- 
lished, they  gain  nothing.  They  Avould,  in  such  an  event,  Avitness 


14 


a still  greater  “ growth  of  a commercial  town  at  the  East.”  The 
only  way  for  them  to  gain,  is  by  a change  of  gauge,  and  that  they 
do  whether  the  European  road  is  built  or  not.  They  obtain  the 
certain  advantages  of  a connection  with  the  Grand  Trunk.  That  is 
all  they  are  after.  And  here  I want  to  remark,  that  you  have  no  as- 
surances of  aid  from  thein  in  hiilding  this  road  if  you  do  repeal  this  Act. 
No  promise  has  been  made ; and  the  manager  here  has  no  author- 
ity to  make  any.  He  does  not  appear  here  for  the  Commonwealth 
of  Massachusetts ; he  only  appears  for  the  Boston  Board  of  Trade. 

The  State  of  Massachusetts  never  will  grant  such  aid.  Beflect  a 
moment,  gentlemen.  Set  your  own  reason  at  work.  The  great  ad- 
vantage of  this  change  is  to  Boston — the  single  City  of  Boston — not 
to  Massachusetts,  only  as  she  is  interested  in  Boston. 

The  gift  and  the  loan  is  asked  of  the  whole  State,  and  if  granted, 
comes  from  the  wdiole  State.  Salem,  Lynn,  Lowell,  Lawrence, 
Springfield,  AVorcester,  and  hundreds  of  interior  towns,  have  some- 
thing to  say  about  such  a grant  as  that;  and  wfith  no  very  direct 
interest  in  the  scheme,  you  will  not  only  judge  whether  there  is  any 
probability  in  its  being  granted,  but  you  will  find  the  true  reason 
why  no  resolve  appropriating  aid  has  ever  passed  both  branches  of 
their  Legislature.  In  1852,  a resolve  did  pass  the  Senate,  but  it 
failed  in  the  popular  branch ; and  you  will  notice  it  w^as  not  on  ac- 
count of  this  restriction,  for  it  was  eight  years  before  the  Act  was 
passed ; and  from  that  time  to  this,  there  has  not  been  even  a re- 
port of  a committee  in  favor  of  it. 

Gentlemen,  it  does  not  mean  aid  to  the  European  Load.  It 
means  a transfer  of  the  privileges  bought  by  us,  when  they  distrust- 
ed our  ability.  Once  remove  the  restriction,  and  you  will  discover 
the  designs.  The  Boston  Board  of  Trade  can  promise  nothing  from 
the  Commonwealth.  They  know  very  well  they  cannot  get  the  State 
to  embark  in  any  such  scheme.  The  interior  towns  and  cities  of 
that  State  wfill  be  very  wary  about  entering  into  an  arrangement  to 
build  a railroad  in  another  State.  Their  Housac  Tunnel  has  n^  yet 
been  completed ; they  have  as  many  public  enterprises,  on  ^^ich 
the  whole  State  is  directly  interested,  as  they  will  furnish  aid  for. 

As  I said  before,  gentlemen,  it  does  not  mean  aid  to  the  European 
Bead.  The  gentleman  who  is  here,  laboring  day  and  night  so  assid- 
uously for  his  employers,  conies  from  the  Boston  Board  of  Trade,  to 
bring  about  a repeal  of  this  Act,  that  the};  may  avail  themselves  of 
the  advantages  of  a road  already  built,  and  a course  of  trade  already 
established.  They  are  not  moving  in  the  dark,  or  proceeding  in  any 
doubtful  speculation.  If  it  meant  aid  for  the  European  Bead,  w'hy 
have  they  not  made  an  appropriation  this  winter  ? Their  Legisla- 
ture is  in  session  now.  They  could  have  passed  a conditional  aid 
bill,  if  they  desired.  Every  day,  since  this  matter  was  broached 
here,  has  carried  by  telegraph  the  intelligence  of  its  success ; yet  no 
telegram  announces  to  us  that  even  a committee  are  considering  the 
subject.  And,  gentlemen,  why  should  they,  if,  as  the  gentleman 
from  Bangor  (Mr.  Garnsey)  told  us  in  the  beginning,  you  had  con- 
cluded to  repeal  this  Act,  and  give  them  all  the  advantages  flowing 
from  it,  without  consideration  or  conditions.  It  would  be  folly 
for  them  to  expend  a million  of  dollars  for  that  which  they  could 
obtain  for  nothing;  not  quite  equal,  however,  to  ours  in  giving 


15 


away  that  which  may  be  worth  hundreds  of  millions  to  us.  But  I 
know,  gentlemen,  that  the  great  length  of  time  which  I have  occu- 
pied has  tired  you  with  listening,  and  while  I have  watched  care- 
fully the  signs  of  uneasiness  consequent  upon  it,  I have  been  grati- 
fied in  finding  more  of  it  on  my  left  (where  Mr.  Poor  was  sitting) 
than  in  front.  I have,  however,  but  a few  more  suggestions  to 
make. 

[At  this  point  the  House  adjourned,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Miller,  of 
Portland.] 


Upon  the  next  day,  the  bill  being  under  discussion,  Mr.  Tapley 
remarked  as  follows: 

]V[r.  Speaker  and  Gentlemen  : — When  the  House  adjourned,  it 
was  my  intention  to  have  proceeded  farther  into  the  discussion  of 
the  bill  itself,  but  upon  reflection  and  in  view  of  the  time  already 
occupied,  I shall  defer  the  farther  discussion  of  the  bill  to  such  re- 
ply as  may  be  elicited  by  suggestions  from  the  other  side  of  the 
House.  I desire,  however,  to  say  now,  that  when  the  proper  time 
comes  in  the  debate,  I shall  move  the  reference  of  the  subject  to 
the  next  Legislature. 

I shall  do  this  for  two  reasons  at  least. 

One  is,  that  it  is  a question  of  great  magnitude,  and  involving  very 
great  interests ; — interests  not  merely  connected  with  the  present, 
but  reaching  far  down  into  the  future.  It  is  no  ordinary  subject  of 
legislation,  but  involves  a change  of  the  policy  of  the  State — not 
respecting  mere  temporary  matters — subjects  which  come  and  pass 
with  every  session — but  one  which  affects  the  vital  energies  and  in- 
terests of  the  State  for  the  present,  and  it  may  be  all  future  time. 

The  consideration  and  caution  so  necessary  in  legislative  action, 
rises  in  importance  with  the  importance  of  the  subject  under  discus- 
sion. The  enactment  of  a public  law  merely  remedial  in  its  nature, 
needs  not  that  public  discussion  and  criticism  which  an  Act  involv- 
ing a change  of  the  policy  of  the  State,  with  reference  to  its  trade 
and  commerce,  absolutely  requires.  Upon  such  questions,  the  rep- 
resentative should  understand  the  views  of  the  constituent,  and  the 
constituent  should  learn  the  true  policy,  by  public  and  private  dis- 
cussions, through  those  avenues  usually  adopted  in  criticising  meas- 
ures of  such  great  importance.  The  other  reason  is,  that  the  eon- 
stituent  has  neither  been  heard  upon  this  subject,  or  had  any  notice 
or  intimation  that  the  subject  was  to  be  discussed  this  session. 

As  I have  before  remarked,  not  twenty  men  in  the  State,  on  the 
day  of  our  election,  had  the  most  remote  idea  that  this  question  was 
to  be  presented  this  winter.  We  should  remember,  that  we  are  but 
a small  portion  of  the  State ; that  great  interests  reside  in  the  con- 
stituency at  home.  It  was  only  the  ordinary  matters  of  legislation 
that  were  expected  to  arise,  and  it  does  seem  to  me  that  prudence 
dictates  the  deference  of  this  subject  another  year. 

It  will  afford  time  and  opportunity  for  discussion,  consultation 
and  thought.  The  press  will  take  it  up  and  discuss  it  in  its  various 
bearings,  and  correct  conclusion  will  be  arrived  at.  If  it  shall  be 
found  useful  to  repeal  the  Act,  then  it  can  be  done ; if  it  should  be 


16 


found  unwise  and  impolitic  to  do  so,  then  we  are  in  a safe  condi- 
tion, and  no  parties  have  been  misled  by  our  action,  and  no  rights 
have  intervened  to  embarrass  in  returning  to  our  present  prosper- 
ous policy. 

Again  I entreat  gentlemen  not  to  act  hastily  upon  this  subject. 
Cast  off  all  alliances,  if  any  have  been  made.  Know  nothing  but 
your  duties  as  legislators. 

The  calm,  considerate  action  of  a legislative  body  will  be  likely  to 
be  permanent ; but  a result  obtained  by  other  and  indefensible  means, 
affords  a very  unsafe  basis  of  action. 


The  Bill  for  the  repeal  having  been  supported  by  Mr.  Garnsey, 
and  Gen.  Hersey,  of  Bangor,  and  Mr.  Stevens,  of  Augusta, 

Mr.  Tapley  remarked  as  follows  : 

Mr.  Speaker  : — I shall  occupy  the  attention  of  the  House  for  a 
few  moments  only,  to  notice  a few  of  the  suggestions  made  by  the 
gentlemen  who  have  addressed  the  House  in  favor  of  the  bill. 

My  friend  (Garnsey)  commences  by  saying  I “ have  a hard  case 
and  a bad  case.”  In  one  view  of  the  subject,  this  may  be  so.  If 
the  judgment  has  been  made  up,  upon  ex  parte  statements,  and  upon 
extraneous  considerations,  as  he  notified  us  early  in  the  debate,  then 
it  is  a hard  case  to  take ; and  in  that  view,  also,  it  might  well  be 
denominated  a had  case ; but  in  no  other  point  of  view  do  I so  re- 
gard it.  I have  waited  with  patience,  and  some  degree  of  anxiety, 
to  hear  some  argument  adduced  for  the  repeal.  Instead  of  treating 
to  such  a feast,  however,  my  friend  commences  again  to  “ring  the 
changes”  upon  the  catch  phrases  of  “ narrow  gauge,”  “narrow 
policy,”  “broad  gauge”  and  “broad  and  liheral  policy.” 

There  are  times  and  places  where  and  when  such  sounds  have  their 
influence.  Whether  they  will  here  or  not,  I cannot  tell.  They 
hardly  comport  with  the  dignity  of  a legislative  assembly,  consider- 
ing matters  of  great  moment. 

I do  not  regard  the  policy  of  a State  as  indicated  in  any  measure 
by  the  gauge  of  its  railroads.  There  may  be  a narrow  policy  exer- 
cised upon  a broad  gauge,  and  a broad  policy  upon  a narrow  gauge. 
If  this  afforded  any  indication  of  a narrow  policy,  it  would  put  the 
gentleman’s  Massachusetts  allies  in  a more  unfavorable  light  than  he 
seeks  to  represent  us,  for  they  have  no  broad  gauge  roads.  It  must 
however  be  apparent  to  you,  that  such  phrases  are  thrown  in  as 
“ make- weights,”  and  used  with  the  purpose  of  prejudicing  the 
hearer,  rather  than  convincing  him. 

I find  but  two  arguments  advanced : The  first  is  advanced  by 
my  friend  Garnsey,  and  is,  “that  the  present  system  dams  up  trade 
in  Portland,” — “ Freights  require  transhipment  there.”  He  desires 
free  communication,  without  transhipment  and  change  of  cars.  Now 
I understand  that  is  just  the  position  the  Boston  Board  of  Trade 
takes  with  reference  to  the  matter.  They  don’t  want  it  dammed  up 
in  Portland,  or  in  Maine  anywhere.  They  want  it  dammed  up  in 
Boston.  What  must  my  friend  do  vrhen  he  gets  to  Boston?  Can 
he  go  on  through  to  New  York,  without  change  of  cars '?  Can  he 


17 

go  to  any  place  beyond,  without  change  of  cars  % It  is  a well  known 
tact,  he  cannot.  Now  if  he  breaks  the  dam  at  Portland,  it  is  only 
to  make  the  dam  at  Boston ; and  that  is  just  what  they  desire.  It 
is  their  policy,  long  practiced ; nothing  can  induce  them  to  depart 
from  it.  It  has  made  Boston  what  it  is.  If  it  has  been  beneficial 
to  them,  can  he  tell  us  why  it  would  not  to  us?  If  it  is  illiberal  in 
us,  can  he  tell  why  it  is  liberal  in  them?  If  a ‘‘narrow  policy”  in 
us,  why  it  is  a “broad  policy”  in  them? 

The  difficulty,  gentlemen,  is  not  because  trade  is  dammed  up,  but 
because  it  is  dammed  up  in  Portland  instead  of  Boston.  They  say 
the  principle  is  right,  but  t\\Q  place  is  Avrong.  So,  gentlemen,  you  see 
ill  whatever  aspect  you  view  the  case,  it  is  an  attempt  of  the  Boston 
capitalists  to  obtain  a trade  and  business  Avhich  legitimately  belongs 
to  us,  by  reason  of  position  and  communication  with  the  West.  If 
Ave  OAve  it  to  them,  give  it  to  them ; if  we  do  not,  let  us  retain  it. 

His  colleague  (Gen.  Hersey)  has  given  us  another  vieAV  of  the  case: 
He  says,  “there  are  three  places  in  the  United  States  to  Avhich  the 
surplus  products  of  the  West  tend  for  exportation — Portland,  Noav 
York  and  Baltimore.” 

This  is  unquestionably  so.  The  Boston  Board  of  Trade  vieAV  it 
ill  the  same  light ; their  agent  here  substantially  so  states  in  his  me- 
morial. Speaking  to  the  Boston  people  in  his  memorial,  he  says 
“ that  it  is  impossible  to  lift  freight  over  the  Berkshire  hills,  and 
bring  it  to  Boston  for  export  to  Europe.”  “ It  Avill,”  he  says,  “ fol- 
loAv  the  Avater  line  of  the  Hudson  to  NeAV  York,  or  of  the  St.  LaAV- 
rence  to  its  nearest  shipping  port  in  winter,  Portland,  instead  of 
scaling  the  ridges  that  separate  the  valley  of  the  Hudson  from  the 
Avaters  of  Massachusetts  Bay.”  He  also  tells  them  that  “flour  and 
grain  Avere  at  one  time  exports  from  Boston  to  Maine,  and  a change 
has  been  effected  by  the  completion  of  the  railway  from  Montreal  to 
Portland,  and  from  thence  to  the  Kennebec  mid  to  Bangor;”  that 
“the  experience  of  the  last  feAV  years  has  shoAVii  that  flour  and 
Western  produce,  to  some  extent,  already  come  to  Boston  by  the 
Avay  of  Portland,  and  that  Eastern  Maine  is  gradually  draAving  its 
supplies  from  the  West  by  the  same  route.” 

Noav  if  I understand  the  argument  of  the  memorial,  it  is  this  : By 
the  completion  of  this  line  of  railway,  the  surplus  produce  of  the 
West  goes  to  Portland  for  exportation,  instead  of  coming  over  the 
Berkshire  hills  and  scaling  the  ridge  Avhich  separates  the  valley  of 
the  Hudson  from  the  Avaters  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  and  that  such  as 
does  not  folloAV  this  line  folio avs  the  Avater  line  of  the  Hudson  to  Noav 
York;  that  betAveen  NeAV  York  and  Portland  they  lose  the  Avdiole 
export  trade  and  its  incidents,  and  that  unless  they  do  somethin o-  to 
regain  or  obtain  this  business,  that  “commercial  town  at  the  East” 
Avill  continue  to  increase  in  the  remarkable  manner  indicated  by  its 
statistics  during  the  last  ten  years.  The  memorial  substantially  says. 
You  have  lost  the  trade  of  Maine ; she  exports  to  you,  instead  of  you 
to  her,  and  you  have  lost  the  exportation  business  abroad,  and  it  be- 
comes you  to  look  about  yourself  to  retain  your  position  as  the  first 
city  in  Ncav  England.  Maine  is  a large  State — has  immense  re- 
sources ; Portland  has  a most  remarkable  harbor — produce  is  landed 
directly  from  the  car  to  ship  and  steamer — no  other  city  in  the  States 


18 


famishing  sncli  facilities  for  transhipment,  &g.,  &g.  Now,  Mr. 
Speaker,  I understand  this  to  be  the  argument  there  adduced,  and 
it  appears  to  be  legitimately  drawn  from  the  facts. 

The  Boston  Board  of  Trade,  realizing  the  force  of  these  facts  and 
figures,  at  once  conclude  that  the  remedy  for  the  evil  is  to  make  the 
water  line  of  the  St.  Lawrence  end  in  l^oston,  then  by  various  con- 
siderations induce  the  carriers  of  exports  to  sail  from  Boston  instead 
of  Portland,  and  the  present  line  of  Ocean  Steamers  will  make  that 
their  point  of  arrival  and  departure.  I therefore  do  not  find  myself 
diftering  materially  from  the  gentleman  from  Bangor  (Gen.  Hersey) 
upon  the  facts  as  stated  by  him.  But  the  Act  of  1800,  you  will  per- 
ceive, is  in  the  way,  hence  this  movement  is  made ; and  for  this 
purpose  this  movement  is  made. 

The  General,  however,  tries  to  think  this  will  not  inalce  any  dif- 
ference in  the  trade ; but  Mr.  Poor  advises  his  friends  in  Boston  that 
it  will — that  it  will  make  a vast  difierence.  However  tliat  may  be, 
is  it  not  safe  to  say,  it  will  do  us  no  good?  Whether  Boston  will  de- 
rive any  benefit  Ifom  it  or  not,  we  have  not  yet  found  a man  ad- 
dressing House  or  Committee  fool-hardy  enough  to  say  it  will  be 
any  benefit  to  us.  We  as  a State  gain  nothing.  While  none  assert 
tliat  we  gain  anything  as  a State,  it  is,  it  appears  to  me,  very  appa- 
rent we  lose. 

Having  again  recourse  to  the  memorial  for  fiicts  and  figures,  what 
do  we  find  has  been  accomplished  under  the  present  system  ? From 
that  paper  it  appears  ‘Hhat  the  trade  of  Maine  has  gradually  been 
Avithdrawn  from  Boston;”  “that  instead  of  Boston  exporting  grain 
to  Maine,  Maine  exports  it  to  Boston “ that  the  City  of  Poibland, 
situated  at  the  terminus  of  the  Grand  Trunk  Railway,  has  increased 
six  times  in  valuation  since  the  completion  of  that  road that  the 
exports  from  Portland  to  foreign  countries  have  increased  twenty 
times  in  value,  and  her  imports  forty  times  in  value. 

Can  any  man  say  the  change  can  be  made  without  detriment?  Is 
it  ])0ssible,  that  a system  can  produce  such  results  and  be  abandoned 
Avith  impunity  ? Bear  in  mind,  I do  not  draw  these  facts  and  figures 
from  my  own  imagination,  or  from  questionably  sources.  I take 
them  from  the  pen  of  the  gentleman  Avho  is  engineering  this  bill 
throimh,  and  all  men,  friends  or  foes,  Avill  credit  him  Avith  remark- 
able ability  and  extensive  knowledge  in  all  matters  pertaining  to  rail- 
i-oads; — and  here  I acknoAvledge  the  great  obligation  I am  under  to 
him  for  this  compilation  of  facts.  Without  it,  I should  have  been 
unable  to  debate  the  question  at  all.  It  is  full  of  proofs  of  the  great 
value  of  the  movement  to  the  City  of  Boston. 

A remark  or  two  from  the  gentleman  from  Augusta  (Mr.  Stevens) 
deserves  passing  notice.  He  has,  even  Avith  this  unanswerable  array 
of  facts  before  him,  labored  most  energetically  to  convince  himself 
that  Massachusetts  lins  not  asked  for  this  repeal ; but  the  more  he 
htbored,  the  more  apparent  it  appeared  to  him  they  Avere  the  sole 
party.  At  every  turn  in  his  speech  the  truth  Avould  appear,  and 
finally  he  Avas  compelled  to  admit,  substantially,  that  such  Avas  the 
fiict,  and  then  justify  it  by  bestOAving  high  encomiums  upon  the  Pa- 
rent CommoiiAvealth,  and  taking  umbrage  at  the  inferences  arising 
from  the  extracts  read  from  the  memorial. 


19 


In  relation  to  that  matter,  gentlemen,  I have  to  say,  that  I neither 
made  the  facts  nor  tlie  memorial,  nor  the  inferences  arising  from 
them.  They  come  from  other  sources,  and  originate  from  the  other 
side  of'  the  House.  I have  no  disposition  to  detract  in  the  least  from 
the  high  character  and  eulogium  which  he  has  pronounced  for  that 
State.  I am  as  proud  of  tliat  State  as  he  is.  It  is  my  native  State. 
There  -were  spent  all  my  early  days ; there  all  my  early  associations ; 
there  are  my  kindred,  dead  and  living,  and  at  home  or  abroad  I love 
to  hear  her  good  deeds  recounted.  No  man,  here  or  there,  takes 
greater  pleasure  in  her  prosperity  and  good  name  tlian  I do.  But, 
gentlemen,  this  can  afford  no  reason  for  giving  her  or  any  other  lo- 
cality rights  belonging  to  the  State  of  my  adoption.  The  interests 
of  Maine,  too,  are  dear  to  me,  and  her  good  name  and  prosperity  a 
pleasure ; and  while  a citizen  of  the  State  I shall  feel  bound  to  watch 
with  jealous  care  any  measure  looking  toward  an  encroachment  iipon 
any  right  of  hers,  or  tending  in  any  degree  to  retard  her  progress  or 
paralyze  her  energies.  Such  is  the  duty  of  every  citizen. 

The  measure  before  us  seemed  to  me  one  which  involved  great 
interests  to  the  State  and  the  citizen.  It  is’one  seriously  threatening 
the  energies  and  continued  prosperity  of  the  principal  city  in  the 
State,  and  as  it  affects  that  for  good  or  evil,  so  it  does  the  State. 

The  gentleman  from  Westbrook  (Mr.  Payson)  has  argued  that 
I^ortland,  by  reason  of  the  extraordinary  exertions  made  by  her  in 
tlie  construction  of  the  Grand  Trunk  Railway,  have  a right  to  the 
protection  which  the  Statute  of  1860  gives.  This  has  again  started 
the  cry  of  “local  interests !”  “local  interests!”  It  is  a very  pretty 
“ rallying  cry,”  gentlemen ; but  to  my  mind,  out  of  place  in  such  an 
assembly  as  this.  As  I before  remarked,  general  interests  and  State 
interests  are  local  interests  in  the  aggregate ; great  rivers  are  made 
of  small  streams,  and  if  the  supplies  to  the  streams  are  cut  off  the 
river  dries  up.  As  the  river  requires  the  supplies  to  the  streams,  so 
the  State  requires  the  supplies  to  the  municipalities  of  which  it  is 
made.  It  appears  to  me  the  argument  is  well  taken,  and  the  answer 
weak.  There  is  reason  why  Portland  is  entitled  to  consideration  in 
the  matter. 

Twenty  years  ago  the  people  of  Portland  made  extraordinary  ex- 
ertions to  carry  through  and  build  a portion  of  the  Grand  Trunk 
Railway.  Citizens  of  that  city  even  mortgaged  their  dwelling  houses 
and  pledged  their  very  hearth-stones  to  raise  money  to  aid  the  en- 
tei'prise.  By  their  indomitable  energy  and  unprecedented  persever- 
ance, it  succeeded;  and  that,  too,  as  stated  by  Mr.  Poor,  “unaided 
by  other  New  England  capital.”  They  are  now  reaping  some  of 
the  fruits  of  their  labors  and  investments,  and  certainly  it  appears  to 
me  they  have  not  only  a deej)  intei-est  in  the  matter  under  considera- 
tion, but  they  have  also,  upon  every  principle  of  honor  and  justice, 
rights  which  ought  to  be  i)rotected.  A piece  of  legislation  wdiich 
will  take  away  from  them  by  major  strength  the  interest,  advantage 
and  ])rivileges  so  onerously  and  creditably  obtained,  can  never  com- 
mend itself  to  calm,  intelligent  reflection.  Even  if  it  were  admitted, 
that  some  localities  in  the  State  might  profit  by  it,  no  rule  of  justice, 
equity  or  comity  would  require  that  Portland  should  make  the  sac- 
rifice. It  is  not,  however,  for  our  benefit  the  cliange  is  sought,  but 


r\\  11  I I II  II  III  ii\ 


934847 


^ 3 


2 061 


20 

for  the  benefit  of  those  who  distrusted  our  ability  to  construct  the 
road  to  the  Canada  line,  and  refused  to  aid  us  in  the  enterprise. 

The  cry  of  local  interest  has  no  force  with  me.  I would  protect 
every  locality  in  its  peculiar  interests,  whenever  it  can  be  done  with- 
out detriment  to  the  public  weal. 

I would  retain  the  trade,  now  held  by  us,  in  this  State. 

I would  make  a Boston,  and  more,  on  Casco  Bay,  by  preserving 
to  the  people  of  Portland  and  vicinity  the  legitimate  fruits  of  their 
enterprise  and  energy.  , 

I would  build  up  the  interior — foster  the  interest  of  the  inland 
cities — increase  the  facilities  of  communication  with  one  another — 
protect  and  aid  the  peculiar  interests  of  Augusta  and  Bangor,  and 
open  to  them  the  productive  valleys  of  their  rivers. 

I would  build  the  European  & North  American  Railway. 

I would  guard  sedulously  all  the  interests  of  our  State — Agricul- 
tural, Educational  and  Commercial ; but  I never  would  squander 
away  all  these,  and  more,  in  some  fanciful  trade  with  Railroad 
Brokers,  or  give  away  the  very  elements  of  our  prosperity,  if  not 
existence,  as  a State. 

We  can  adopt  and  maintain  a policy  which  will  make  us  in  time 
a great  State  in  every  point  of  view,  or  we  can  now  take  the  step 
towards  returning  to  the  subsidiary  position  which  we  have  once 
before  occupied. 

Gentlemen,  I came  into  the  debate  a stranger  to  many  of  the  im- 
portant questions  arising  in  it.  I had  no  thought  that  such  a ques- 
tion would  arise  during  the  session.  My  constituents  and  yours  are 
even  now  ignorant  of  the  pendency  of  this  question ; and  although 
assured  in  the  beginning,  that  the  measure  was  to  pass,  I have  at 
times  hoped  that  it  would  be  deferred  for  farther  reflection,  and  that 
we  should  exhibit  some  evidence  of  an  appreciation  of  the  import- 
ance of  the  subject.  If,  however,  the  measure  must  pass,  those  Avho 
come  after  us  may  correct  the  errors  we  commit. 

Thanking  you  for  the  very  flattering  manner  in  which  you  have 
listened  to  my  remarks,  and  suggesting  the  great  importance  of  the 
subject  as  the  only  apology  due  for  the  length  of  time  I have  taken, 
I leave  the  subject  in  your  hands. 


Printed  by  direction  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  Portland. 


C.  S.  King,  Printer. 


